Author
Topic: What is white balance and what's the correct way to use it? (Read 23115 times)

After purchasing a non-mfg lens, I've noticed that a lot of my photos have become warmer. I kind of preferred the cool blue color of my kit lens but it's not too bothersome. I've noticed that my camera has something called wb shift/bkrt option. After playing around with the menu, I'm still a bit confused about white balance in general.

What is the correct white balance for photos? Like what's natural and unnatural looking. How can you determine if the whites are truely white and the colors are really the colors that are actually the real colors? And does white balance really matter if I'm shooting raw since corrections on PP are available?

What is the correct white balance for photos? Like what's natural and unnatural looking. How can you determine if the whites are truely white and the colors are really the colors that are actually the real colors? And does white balance really matter if I'm shooting raw since corrections on PP are available?

It's subjective. Some prefer warmer tones, others cooler, depending on the shot. People are used to warner light indoors, so sometimes truly accurate WB under tungsten looks cold.

WB doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW, as far as the image goes. There is a possible indirect effect if you use the review image/histogram to judge and change exposure, since the review image/histogram are based on the in-camera jpg conversion (even for RAW) and too warm a WB may show as saturation of some colors that really aren't, and you may choose to underexpose a bit because of that.

If you want accurate, shoot a white balance target (SpyderCube, WhiBal, etc.) or a gray card, and use that to set the WB during RAW processing. If you want complete color accuracy, use something like an X-rite ColorChecker Passport.

What is the correct white balance for photos? Like what's natural and unnatural looking. How can you determine if the whites are truely white and the colors are really the colors that are actually the real colors? And does white balance really matter if I'm shooting raw since corrections on PP are available?

It's subjective. Some prefer warmer tones, others cooler, depending on the shot. People are used to warner light indoors, so sometimes truly accurate WB under tungsten looks cold.

WB doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW, as far as the image goes. There is a possible indirect effect if you use the review image/histogram to judge and change exposure, since the review image/histogram are based on the in-camera jpg conversion (even for RAW) and too warm a WB may show as saturation of some colors that really aren't, and you may choose to underexpose a bit because of that.

If you want accurate, shoot a white balance target (SpyderCube, WhiBal, etc.) or a gray card, and use that to set the WB during RAW processing. If you want complete color accuracy, use something like an X-rite ColorChecker Passport.

Wow, thanks for that fast reply neuro. I kind of understand white balance now. I'll look into grabbing a white balance target. I've read somewhere that RAW isn't actually an image file it's something else. It was in Scott kelby's book I think.

Setting a "correct" WB for a picture is challenging, as Neuro has written - it's subjective. If you will set your WB in the current scene according to the grey card before the shot you will most likely have the correct WB if light will not change between calibration and final shooting.If you shoot RAW and have a grey card in the scene at your target, and in PP you will pick WB from the card, then in most cases it will be most accurate, neutral and objective WB. But it happens, that you have in your scene parts which are more and less lit. If you would have two grey cards in your scene - one in the shadow and one in the light then it may happen, that those WBs would differ. Sometimes instead of the grey card you can choose white object as a source of WB but it can be more misleading. It complicates even more when you have light sources of different temperature on your photo. Your brain will in most cases still properly interprete colours in the real life scene but on the photo you can get complete strange effects. This is something I'm talking about: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2470.0 I was challenging a few months ago looking for some methods I wouldn't know before.

It happens that when I am now trying to set the correct WB for photos taken ie outside in the early afternoon, so the photo would look like when I remember it, then it begins to be too strange sometimes (ie too warm as there are yellow and red leaves) so I have to be make reasonable adjustments in PP not to change it the wrong direction. I would like green to look green (and not much blue) and warm to look warm, but when you have a scene lit with sunlight reflected from colorful leaves, then it is still challenging for me. In such cases I think that even a grey card will give you different WBs depending where you would put your grey card in the scene.

No it is not subjective: Correct white balance means that a white, gray, black or full gray scale surface is displayed without discoloration and have the same RGB values from the whitest down to black and .One should distinguish between the use of gray cards that are more suited for exposure and a card where the white balance should be made towards a value around R 220 G 220 B220 and that the card has such metamerism characteristics that a white balance can be made in different color temperatures.Then that the image results do not fit is a subjective evaluation .

Great response from Mikael. Too many people just glibly talk about a "grey card" for white balance. They go on eBay, buy a $5 piece of grey cardboard, try to use that to do white balance, and end up with something that looks really dreadful. While this grey pieces of garbage may be fine for setting exposure because they are the middle tone that the meter expects, they are often times dreadfully bad for setting white balance.

Do use such an aid for white balance, it needs to be something that is specifically manufuactured for that purpose. I use the Lastolite EZBalance. It has the benefit of being perfectly suited for both exposure and white balance. Personally, I do a custom in camera white balance by shooting and image of the EZBalance filling the frame, and then using the custom white balance functions of the camera to adjust according to that image.

Even if shooting raw you need to worry about this. The camera will apply some sort of white balance adjustment to your raw file, whether you want it to or not. That's what all of the Tungsten, Daylight, Shade, Cloudy, Flourescent, Auto White Balance, etc etc settings on the camera do. And while those can be close, they won't be perfectly neutral. And it takes a very finally trained and perceptive eye to be able to look at one of these images on the screen and know with percision how much Temperature and Tint to adjust to get it back to neutral.

By setting the camera white balance to a custom level by shooting my EZBalance, every image I take that comes off the camera down to Lightroom has whites, greys and blacks that are balanced - equal amounts of Red, Green, Blue. From there I can cool it down or warm it up for taste, but I'm not having to make large adjustments for correction.

Get that white balance nailed and you'll reduce your post processing work flow by a huge amount.

Best results do we get from a card with for example four different surfaces from black to white so that we can adjust curves towards more points than one grey. And if the WB results not fit the taste - that is a subjective opinion and we can adjust cooler,warmer etc .

Can someone explain from a practical point of view how you'd use the four points in Lightroom or in-camera or do you need Photoshop? I have a set of cards with white / grey / black and had only every used the grey, I wondered what the others were about. I've only ever seen the one colour temperature to adjust, so I can see now what they should be like, but not sure what I'd do if say white was perfect but black wasn't?

Anyway to the OP I'm clearly not an expert, but one additional time you have to be really careful with white balance is in gallery / photoset situations where each photo by itself might look great but put ten side by side containing the same objects / clothes etc and it's immediately obvious something is 'wrong' even to a non-critical eye.

No it is not subjective: Correct white balance means that a white, gray, black or full gray scale surface is displayed without discoloration and have the same RGB values from the whitest down to black .One should distinguish between the use of gray cards that are more suited for exposure and not white balance and a card where the white balance should be made towards whiter area with a value around R 220 G 220 B220, . The cards should also have such metamerism characteristics that a white balance can be made in different color temperatures. Best results do we get from a card with for example four different surfaces from black to white so that we can adjust curves towards more points than one grey. And if the WB results not fit the taste - that is a subjective opinion and we can adjust cooler,warmer etc .

I use ColorChecker also for camera calibration in place and it still doesn't matter, because until you don't work in studio or with fully controlled light you get anyway the correct WB just in a place where you check it at specific angle and not for the whole scene. Since I have found out that, my workflow is much simpler because i simply don't use it everywhere nor always Seriously - if you control the light, it helps a lot. If you don't have too much influence on that, then in most cases it's just a matter of taste. Theoretically - you are right. In practice if you are a pro then go outside, measure the current temperature of the natural light, set your external lights to the same temperature, cast your light form ideal white or silver surfaces and then it makes sense. If your target has an ideal objective white balance with proper skin tones but the rest is ugly, then what a sense makes setting the WB to the correct WB just in this place? What is the correct objective white balance in a scene with light sources having different temperature? What is the correct objective WB on the soccer field in the late afternoon when the external lights are on and have of course a different temperature than the sun at the sunset? You have three players in a frame and each of them is differently lit? I'd like to know it myself because neither of: set K, grey card, colorchecker (light changes through 90 minutes), auto, daylight or shadow help. And of course obtaining WB from white shirts of the players doesn't help, because it changes drammatically depending on the angle of the shirt exposed to either light, distance to the light and amount of the shadow on the shirt giving in the end different tones of the green, but correct tones of the skin etc.

No it is not subjective: Correct white balance means that a white, gray, black or full gray scale surface is displayed without discoloration and have the same RGB values from the whitest down to black .One should distinguish between the use of gray cards that are more suited for exposure and not white balance and a card where the white balance should be made towards whiter area with a value around R 220 G 220 B220, . The cards should also have such metamerism characteristics that a white balance can be made in different color temperatures. Best results do we get from a card with for example four different surfaces from black to white so that we can adjust curves towards more points than one grey. And if the WB results not fit the taste - that is a subjective opinion and we can adjust cooler,warmer etc .

paul13walnut5

And no, it is not subjective. It is a science. And it was a scientist from my home town that devised the Kelvin Scale.

We could say, yeah, it's subjective. We could say that yeah, I like the way sodium renders everything orange and I don't want to know how to fix it. We could say that. But as you asked the question, it's not very helpful.

I take WB seriously because I do video, and in video, more often than in stills you need to mix and match different types of light, you can rarely rely on presets because flourescent tubes are all different, a tungsten light thats been on for 30seconds is different from a tungsten light thats been on for half an hour, because sunlight at 11am is different from sunlight at 1pm or 4pm...

I might have a flouro softbox for fill, a tungsten red for set, and it may be beyond my control that there is also a skylight over the location.

So I will get up on the step ladders and tape some Lee CTO to the glass. I will draw the side curtains. I will put an FLO gel over the softlight. This is because my producer, my client will not like 'subjective' results, the colourist will not like subjective results. The camera will not like subjective results. The viewer will not like subjective results.

So I take colour temperature a bit more seriously than most.

It is not an effect.

Old adage. Camera 101 time. Get it right in the camera and add the effect in post.

I'm not wishing to patronise the OP, as they asked a worthwhile question in earnest, but I'll happily correct cr@p like 'it's subjective'.

Some (hopefully useful basics)

The camera has not a clue what colour of light the subject is under. A single colour subject with no reference will confuse a camera set to AWB.

So an Orange will usually come out wrong. The sea will usually come out wrong.

So you tell the camera what colour temperature of the ambient light is.

You can do this A using the kelvin scale (if your camera supports this, and your confident how many Kelvins match candlelight, shade, sun at midday)

You can do this B using the cameras WB set function (shamefully clumsy on canons, no excuse for it in these days of live view, should be as easy as video manual WB) find a neutral white or grey subject under the same light as your subject (bleached copier paper is usually fine, a paving slab or even magnolia painted wall is close enough) For deliberately filtered light, say at a rock concert, then the next step may work better...

Or you can C choose a close preset. This way a deliberately red light appears red as intended...

YOU SHOULD DO ONE OF THESE STEPS WHETHER YOU SHOOT IN RAW OR JPEG. RAW CAN CORRECT SO MUCH. GETTING IT RIGHT IN THE FILE MAKES IT EASIER TO RECOVER.

By all means tweak it in post, to your subjective tastes. But do try to get it right in camera, or at least close.

Like Mikael I use the QP card, particularly on two / multi camera shoots. I will filter match my lights and any other light sources, then set up manual WB with a grey card, and then record a test clip with greyscale QP card in vision.

This is probably too much for most, but it is worth reading up a little on colour temperature just so as to understand better what will help your camera and help your images.

At the sensor stage it should be anything but subjective. Get it right at the camera and you can grade and tweak away. Get it subjectively wrong at the camera and you may find that it can never quite be recovered.

The summary is that (in photo-editing software) white balance is used to make what you know is white (like a photographed white shirt) look white on your display.

But in reality, white balance is an incomplete way of describing what color really is. The complete way is to use the spectral power distribution of the light hitting the subject, atmospheric conditions, sensor and display spectral calibration, the spectral power distribution of the light hitting the display, and finally the (natural) calibration of the human eye.

Simplistically, the white balance defines how perceived white (cooler or warmer, as you've said, with an orange or blue cast) is obtained.

The problem with its simplicity is that the illuminating light is actually changing the color balance of a subject (which is a photo on a display / paper), so if you change the white balance to get white, all colors change, not just white. By this I mean that you should not try to make a white shirt look white in a photo of a subject taken indoors under fluorescent light because then you would get green skin.

The reason why white balance is subjective is because a photographer can use it to change the look of his photos as he sees fit. The reason why it is objective is because there are standards to follow (the so called science). But truly, at the very core of physics, beyond human biology and standardized spectra, white does not exist as an absolute / objective concept. White is not like gravity, it's a human defined concept based on human perception and the light coming from our sun (for many millennia that have shaped our eyes).

And no, it is not subjective. It is a science. And it was a scientist from my home town that devised the Kelvin Scale.

We could say, yeah, it's subjective. We could say that yeah, I like the way sodium renders everything orange and I don't want to know how to fix it. We could say that. But as you asked the question, it's not very helpful.

I take WB seriously because I do video, and in video, more often than in stills you need to mix and match different types of light, you can rarely rely on presets because flourescent tubes are all different, a tungsten light thats been on for 30seconds is different from a tungsten light thats been on for half an hour, because sunlight at 11am is different from sunlight at 1pm or 4pm...

I might have a flouro softbox for fill, a tungsten red for set, and it may be beyond my control that there is also a skylight over the location.

So I will get up on the step ladders and tape some Lee CTO to the glass. I will draw the side curtains. I will put an FLO gel over the softlight. This is because my producer, my client will not like 'subjective' results, the colourist will not like subjective results. The camera will not like subjective results. The viewer will not like subjective results.

So I take colour temperature a bit more seriously than most.

It is not an effect.

Old adage. Camera 101 time. Get it right in the camera and add the effect in post.

I'm not wishing to patronise the OP, as they asked a worthwhile question in earnest, but I'll happily correct cr@p like 'it's subjective'.

Some (hopefully useful basics)

The camera has not a clue what colour of light the subject is under. A single colour subject with no reference will confuse a camera set to AWB.

So an Orange will usually come out wrong. The sea will usually come out wrong.

So you tell the camera what colour temperature of the ambient light is.

You can do this A using the kelvin scale (if your camera supports this, and your confident how many Kelvins match candlelight, shade, sun at midday)

You can do this B using the cameras WB set function (shamefully clumsy on canons, no excuse for it in these days of live view, should be as easy as video manual WB) find a neutral white or grey subject under the same light as your subject (bleached copier paper is usually fine, a paving slab or even magnolia painted wall is close enough) For deliberately filtered light, say at a rock concert, then the next step may work better...

Or you can C choose a close preset. This way a deliberately red light appears red as intended...

YOU SHOULD DO ONE OF THESE STEPS WHETHER YOU SHOOT IN RAW OR JPEG. RAW CAN CORRECT SO MUCH. GETTING IT RIGHT IN THE FILE MAKES IT EASIER TO RECOVER.

By all means tweak it in post, to your subjective tastes. But do try to get it right in camera, or at least close.

Like Mikael I use the QP card, particularly on two / multi camera shoots. I will filter match my lights and any other light sources, then set up manual WB with a grey card, and then record a test clip with greyscale QP card in vision.

This is probably too much for most, but it is worth reading up a little on colour temperature just so as to understand better what will help your camera and help your images.

At the sensor stage it should be anything but subjective. Get it right at the camera and you can grade and tweak away. Get it subjectively wrong at the camera and you may find that it can never quite be recovered.

Getting the WB wrong can't necessarily be fixed. With the 1DX I've gotten it wrong with mixed lighting sources and this will leave green tinted or pink tinted shadows that cannot be repaired in post, or if they can, not worth the copious amount of time to do so. So I agree, you gotta get it right.

Getting the WB wrong can't necessarily be fixed. With the 1DX I've gotten it wrong with mixed lighting sources and this will leave green tinted or pink tinted shadows that cannot be repaired in post, or if they can, not worth the copious amount of time to do so. So I agree, you gotta get it right.

In that case you can't get it right because the color balance was changed by the light. Each of those light sources has a different white point and a different color balance.

This is why white balance is a misleading concept. People start thinking that you can get the color balance right by changing the white balance. The only time when you can get it right is in standard light (like D65 light sources), because that's the context in which (human expected) color (balance) is defined. In any other case, you can only get an approximation whose accuracy depends on the spectral power distribution of all present light sources. In many cases it may be good enough, but in some cases it may make people think that they've done something wrong.

For mixed types of light, things like ColorPassport are better because they affect the color balance, not just the white balance. Differences may be significant even in broad daylight because sunlight is not really a D65 light, plus it varies constantly.

Old adage. Camera 101 time. Get it right in the camera and add the effect in post.

I'm not wishing to patronise the OP, as they asked a worthwhile question in earnest, but I'll happily correct cr@p like 'it's subjective'.

Some (hopefully useful basics)

The camera has not a clue what colour of light the subject is under. A single colour subject with no reference will confuse a camera set to AWB.

So an Orange will usually come out wrong. The sea will usually come out wrong.

So you tell the camera what colour temperature of the ambient light is.

You can do this A using the kelvin scale (if your camera supports this, and your confident how many Kelvins match candlelight, shade, sun at midday)

You can do this B using the cameras WB set function (shamefully clumsy on canons, no excuse for it in these days of live view, should be as easy as video manual WB) find a neutral white or grey subject under the same light as your subject (bleached copier paper is usually fine, a paving slab or even magnolia painted wall is close enough) For deliberately filtered light, say at a rock concert, then the next step may work better...

Or you can C choose a close preset. This way a deliberately red light appears red as intended...

YOU SHOULD DO ONE OF THESE STEPS WHETHER YOU SHOOT IN RAW OR JPEG. RAW CAN CORRECT SO MUCH. GETTING IT RIGHT IN THE FILE MAKES IT EASIER TO RECOVER.

By all means tweak it in post, to your subjective tastes. But do try to get it right in camera, or at least close.

Like Mikael I use the QP card, particularly on two / multi camera shoots. I will filter match my lights and any other light sources, then set up manual WB with a grey card, and then record a test clip with greyscale QP card in vision.

This is probably too much for most, but it is worth reading up a little on colour temperature just so as to understand better what will help your camera and help your images.

At the sensor stage it should be anything but subjective. Get it right at the camera and you can grade and tweak away. Get it subjectively wrong at the camera and you may find that it can never quite be recovered.

I would love to have that much control over Kelvin to actually see and get the results I want but being the owner of a consumer dslr the white balance settings are very dumbed down. And the wb shft/brkt was added but made things a little more complicated than it needed to be. I get the chance to play with Kelvin because my camera has MAGICLANTERN installed. But it's too complicated to go through all those menus and adjust on the fly. I was just inquiring about a way to fix wb on the go. I'm not poking fun at you sir, I respect your response because you've given me a larger insight on white balance (along with many users here [thanks guys]), but I don't have the time to climb ladders to adjust my non-existent professional lighting equipment and gels. I don't have a 30'x30 soft box or multiple gels at my disposal. I'm just trying to find a solution where I can work with what I have, which is my camera and Lightroom.

I'm just trying to find a solution where I can work with what I have, which is my camera and Lightroom.

Thus, I repeat - get a WhiBal or SpyderCube (I like the latter because it also offers deep black and specular highlight references for exposure, but the WhiBal is flat), include it in a picture, shoot RAW, dropper it to set WB in post for the series of shots in the same light.